D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities

[The Crimson Binome]

The premise of the game will vary by table. Not all games are about groups of mighty adventurers. That may be a kind of default assumption, but it's far from universal.

It's my premise, because I'm the one who wrote the question about how low of a Strength score is acceptable, because somehow I got roped into explaining the position of the OP. It's far from a universal premise (although it's not a particularly unlikely one), but if you don't accept that as the starting point, then the question is meaningless.

If that's the premise, then how much Strength can the other players expect from a level 10 barbarian in order to maintain tone?

 

[Lanliss]

I agree with you (contra @Saelorn) that the 6 STR could be due to age.

But I think I share Saelorn's doubts about this wily INT/WIS barbarian leader. In 5e, there aren't really any mechanics to give voice to that leadership; and the player doesn't get any bonuses as a leader by having those stats on his/her PC sheet.

By "leader" I meant the guy who usually takes point on handling actual party business. Wis and Int would give him a good idea of who they are dealing with, as well as have functions out in the day to day adventuring life. He can craft strategy, keep an eye out for attacks, maybe even use his years of experience to pick out some of his enemies weaknesses. I think that, if it were me playing him, I would start in on Battlemaster, to show off his strategy mechanically.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

1) As far as I know, there is no limitation on what you HAVE to be in D&D, hence there being evil paladins, weak but dexterous fighters, Intelligent Sorcerers, and wise Wizards. An archetype does not by any means limit what you are allowed to do, and I would happily allow anyone to play a charming Barb, and am actually bored, just by the idea of another big stupid swinger of great axes.

In any RPG, the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world, but they need to make a lot of assumptions in order to get the ruleset down to something that's actually playable (and hopefully fun). That's why the rules in the book cover a lot of situations that arise during gameplay, but aren't especially good for describing how NPCs operate behind the scenes. Many of the rules don't really make sense when you take them out of the context that they were designed to cover.

One of the big assumptions about D&D, as compared to a lot of other games, is that playable characters (the ones we care most about modeling) hew fairly closely to certain archetypes, which are the in-game reality that the classes reflect. And the more detailed they build the classes, the more assumptions they need to make about the characters. Why do rogues learn thieves' cant, for example? It's because the game assumes "During your rogue training you learned thieves’ cant, a secret mix of dialect, jargon, and code that allows you to hide messages in seemingly normal conversation," and "In addition, you understand a set of secret signs and symbols used to convey short, simple messages, such as whether an area is dangerous or the territory of a thieves’ guild, whether loot is nearby, or whether the people in an area are easy marks or will provide a safe house for thieves on the run." That's a pretty big assumption to make about your character, but it has to be true, or else they wouldn't be able to include it as a class feature; and that's just a minor aspect of the class.

And some classes make fewer assumptions than other classes. The fighter class, for example, assumes that you know how to use various weapons and armors (or can figure it out easily enough); it assumes that you have practiced one style of fighting more than others; and it assumes that you spend a lot of time making weapon attacks, which is why you get so much better at them as you gain levels in the class. If you hardly ever used a weapon, then there's no reason why you would gain the Extra Attack feature, which describes how much better you are with making weapon attacks. The class doesn't even assume whether you use a rapier, greatsword, or bow; which is why its features work equally well with all of them.

The barbarian class, along with the monk and (in earlier editions) the paladin, represent some of the most narrow archetypes in the game. They have to make more assumptions about your character, in order for the class progression to make sense, than they have to make about fighters or rogues or wizards. A barbarian gets mad, and then charges into combat with a big melee weapon. If that wasn't true, then they wouldn't be justified in gaining their rage feature, which only grants a bonus to Strength-based weapons.

Of course, there's nothing saying that you can't have a barbarian who is also charming, but if you talked your way through most problems instead of charging at them with an axe, then you're violating the design assumption that forms the basis of the class in the first place. The progression of barbarian class features does not accurately reflect the sort of social character you are describing.

 

[Lanliss]

In any RPG, the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world, but they need to make a lot of assumptions in order to get the ruleset down to something that's actually playable (and hopefully fun). That's why the rules in the book cover a lot of situations that arise during gameplay, but aren't especially good for describing how NPCs operate behind the scenes. Many of the rules don't really make sense when you take them out of the context that they were designed to cover.

One of the big assumptions about D&D, as compared to a lot of other games, is that playable characters (the ones we care most about modeling) hew fairly closely to certain archetypes, which are the in-game reality that the classes reflect. And the more detailed they build the classes, the more assumptions they need to make about the characters. Why do rogues learn thieves' cant, for example? It's because the game assumes "During your rogue training you learned thieves’ cant, a secret mix of dialect, jargon, and code that allows you to hide messages in seemingly normal conversation," and "In addition, you understand a set of secret signs and symbols used to convey short, simple messages, such as whether an area is dangerous or the territory of a thieves’ guild, whether loot is nearby, or whether the people in an area are easy marks or will provide a safe house for thieves on the run." That's a pretty big assumption to make about your character, but it has to be true, or else they wouldn't be able to include it as a class feature; and that's just a minor aspect of the class.

And some classes make fewer assumptions than other classes. The fighter class, for example, assumes that you know how to use various weapons and armors (or can figure it out easily enough); it assumes that you have practiced one style of fighting more than others; and it assumes that you spend a lot of time making weapon attacks, which is why you get so much better at them as you gain levels in the class. If you hardly ever used a weapon, then there's no reason why you would gain the Extra Attack feature, which describes how much better you are with making weapon attacks. The class doesn't even assume whether you use a rapier, greatsword, or bow; which is why its features work equally well with all of them.

The barbarian class, along with the monk and (in earlier editions) the paladin, represent some of the most narrow archetypes in the game. They have to make more assumptions about your character, in order for the class progression to make sense, than they have to make about fighters or rogues or wizards. A barbarian gets mad, and then charges into combat with a big melee weapon. If that wasn't true, then they wouldn't be justified in gaining their rage feature, which only grants a bonus to Strength-based weapons.

Of course, there's nothing saying that you can't have a barbarian who is also charming, but if you talked your way through most problems instead of charging at them with an axe, then you're violating the design assumption that forms the basis of the class in the first place. The progression of barbarian class features does not accurately reflect the sort of social character you are describing.

This may be the primary issue we are clashing on, overall. I do not think that anyone is limited in any way by their class. I do not think k that being a Barbarian means that you have to rage and swing an axe. Maybe a Barbarian reserves his rage for a specific foe, like Dryads or stairs. Maybe his clan has this rage because of a ritual that is done to them all at birth, and he has been fighting it his entire life, while still trying to do enough Barbarian type things to keep from getting banished. Rather than using it as a Hulk button, I would use it as a story assist. Find out why I am angry in a given circumstance and, if I rage, focus fire on the reason.

 

[BoldItalic]

It's my premise, because I'm the one who wrote the question about how low of a Strength score is acceptable, because somehow I got roped into explaining the position of the OP. It's far from a universal premise (although it's not a particularly unlikely one), but if you don't accept that as the starting point, then the question is meaningless.

If that's the premise, then how much Strength can the other players expect from a level 10 barbarian in order to maintain tone?

My answer would be "16 or 18".

I've used a program to generate 100 random Barbarian-10 characters, starting with point buy and simulating sensible (but not fiercely optimised) player choices at each level up. Feats allowed as per normal rules.

12% had Str 14/15 and corresponded to the "player" opting for a flat distribution of ability scores initially, and then taking as many feats as possible in preference to ASIs. This might be a reasonable strategy if you are creating a character without knowing what kind of campaign you are entering or what kind of characters the other players might field, but I imagine that "strong optimisers" would probably not favour doing this.

82% were 16-18, with 16 being the most likely (43%) and the odd-numbered score the least (14%) because odd-numbered scores are a waste of points unless you are intending to nudge them up another single point next time.

Only 6% went for maximising strength at the expense of taking feats.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's my premise, because I'm the one who wrote the question about how low of a Strength score is acceptable, because somehow I got roped into explaining the position of the OP. It's far from a universal premise (although it's not a particularly unlikely one), but if you don't accept that as the starting point, then the question is meaningless.

If that's the premise, then how much Strength can the other players expect from a level 10 barbarian in order to maintain tone?

It depends, I think. Does the player bring any other mechanical strength to the table to make up for the low Str? If not, then I'd expect the DM to adjust things to a party one member smaller when determining what's appropriate for the party to face.

If we're talking about some extreme case where the character is not simply suboptimal but is rather totally mechanically useless, then I think that needs to be taken into consideration by the DM and the other players. If the game is very character driven, then I'd expect the character's flaws to be brought up in game. If the game is more mechanically driven, then I could see how that would be an issue at the table.

Clashin styles like that can definitely be an issue...and anytime there's an issue, it needs to be addressed and worked out.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I've used a program to generate 100 random Barbarian-10 characters, starting with point buy and simulating sensible (but not fiercely optimised) player choices at each level up. Feats allowed as per normal rules.

Out of curiosity, could you run that again without allowing feats? Or is that not a possible input parameter for the program?

The mechanical impact of a feat can be difficult to quantify, but I would use the general approximation that a relevant feat is the equivalent of +2 to your prime score, such that 16 + 2 feats has the same rough power level as a score of 20.

 

[BoldItalic]

Out of curiosity, could you run that again without allowing feats? Or is that not a possible input parameter for the program?

The mechanical impact of a feat can be difficult to quantify, but I would use the general approximation that a relevant feat is the equivalent of +2 to your prime score, such that 16 + 2 feats has the same rough power level as a score of 20.

Sure. Without feats, odd numbers are even more strongly disfavoured and there is, not surprisingly, a shift upwards by, roughly speaking, +2. That's not to say that a feat is worth +2, just it costs a +2 ASI to take one.

15 2%
16 22%
17 4%
18 48%
19 1%
20 23%

So now, 16/18/20 is the expected range, depending on how much emphasis the player places on other abilities (most notably Dex).

Remember, though, that the program incorporates my idea of how to optimise characters; it's not running combat simulations to work out what is mathematically optimal.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, I read a phrase like "unsuccessful" to be synonymous with "unsuccessful" because I'm wild and crazy to think the same word means the same thing. Maybe just me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Apparently you don't, so there's no point in even having a discussion if we can't agree on the same language of discussion.

"Unsuccessful" obviously means unsuccessful. But "undesired" doesn't.

The book says that combat will take place if avoidance and negotiatoin are undesired or unsuccessful. That obviously contemplates that sometimes avoidance and negotiation are undesired. Why are they undesired? Becauase sometimes combat is the correct choice.

To given another example: if a full-strength 3rd level party comes across (through planning or through luck) a pair of ogres guarding a chest with 1,000 gp in it, it is sensible for the party to initiate combat to try and get that gold.

 

[pemerton]

By "leader" I meant the guy who usually takes point on handling actual party business. Wis and Int would give him a good idea of who they are dealing with, as well as have functions out in the day to day adventuring life. He can craft strategy, keep an eye out for attacks, maybe even use his years of experience to pick out some of his enemies weaknesses.

But how does this actually work at the table?

Some systems have "augment" rules, where a successful check (say, a tactics roll) can give a bonus to a later check (say, allies' attack rolls). But D&D doesn't really have that.

Likewise for picking out weaknesses - in some systems a playere can make a perception check to (say) spot a weakness in enemy armour and thereby grant a bonus to him/herself or an ally, but D&D isn't really such a system either.

I think that, if it were me playing him, I would start in on Battlemaster, to show off his strategy mechanically.

OK, but now the character's not really a barbarian anymore, is he?